masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Elevator conversations
Really? (aka candidate for deletion) One of the main rules around here is that NOT EVERYTHING DESERVES AN ARTICLE. This is (to the best of my knowledge) the first conversation article on the wiki, and I don't see the need for it, at all. What's next? Transcripts of cutscene conversations posted as articles? This is useless minutiae that doesn't warrant an article. My first instinct was to delete right away, but I decided to open it up, see if anyone could make a convincing case for why small talk deserves an article. Good luck! SpartHawg948 08:22, January 15, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah--I can see that this was likely created by someone from the Dragon Age wiki. DAWiki has articles that chronicle the ambient conversations between your characters using almost this exact format. But, any salient information -- the first thing that comes to mind is Tali talking about quarian biotics -- gets merged into pages and we're left with just random elevator comments. Also: I'm not sure where this page would be linked from. Dialogue, maybe, but then, as Spart said, I don't see why we need to. I can see the appeal, but I think this page should be deleted. --Tullis 13:06, January 15, 2010 (UTC) ::I don't feel particularly strongly about this issue, but I do think that as the Mass Effect wiki, shouldn't pretty much everything be documented? Otherwise where else will it be? As for where it would be linked, I don't see why the sidebar couldn't have a "Dialogue" link that links to quotes and conversations pages. Then they wouldn't be intruding on the the main content, it would be in its own little corner of the wiki, but there would be a record of a lot of dialog that people can reference or just read through. We wouldn't need to pay too much attention, but any editor who heard something cool or funny would have a place to document it, without trying to shoehorn it into an existing article. Spart says not everything deserves an article. I'm not sure I agree, we have every single item and every single stat on here somewhere, so why not dialog? Seems to work pretty well for the DA wiki. That said, I won't put up a fight if it's decided that it should be deleted. JakePT 13:43, January 15, 2010 (UTC) :Everything needs to be documented, eh? Tell that to the zeioph, the SSV Hyderabad, the Izaali Combine, or any of the myriad other things that used to have articles but don't any longer, or all the pre-Mass Effect articles. Not everything deserves an article. There are plenty of people, places, things, etc from the games and books that we have one sentence's worth of info about. Not enough to justify an article. Please, if something I just said doesn't make sense, point it out to me. And how many dialogue articles do we need? This one only? But if we allow this one, won't other dialogue need articles? And what's the cut-off? JakePT, you yourself have been undoing quotes in articles because they came from trailers, not the game. Does that mean the dialogue articles should be in-game dialogue only? Some of the best quotes come from the trailers. As it stands, editors DO have a place to document things they hear that are funny and cool: Their user pages. Several already have quotes sections. No one is stopping them. I just don't see why we need a transcript of the dialogue presented as an article. As Tullis said, all the relevant information from these quotes is already in the articles. SpartHawg948 :: Burn it to the ground! Seriously though, as hilarious as Wrex's elevator conversations are, the wiki should be a concise and useful information source, rather than an in-depth down-the-very-grassroots-and-foundations encyclopedia or *everything* Mass Effect. Besides, sometimes it's better to hint at things like Wrex's dry wit, and let the player explore and find it for himself. Surely the transcripts are technically spoilers too? Additional: Apologies, I keep forgetting to sign the bloody thing. Sorry... Phylarion 21:56, January 15, 2010 (UTC) :::I agree. It also means that people have an incentive to actually play and experience the game as it's meant to be experienced, rather than just reading a script. For example, I read a lot of the companion conversations on the DA Wiki, and I actually found that, when I ran across them in-game, they were a lot less enjoyable because I knew what was coming. This also means that the best quotes float to the top and get used on the character's page. --Tullis 23:51, January 15, 2010 (UTC) ::::Indeed! Having all these different conversations gave me some incentive to bring along different squad members I might not have usually used, which made for a more interesting and rewarding experience. Having a page like this would kind of negate that, wouldn't it? SpartHawg948 00:06, January 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::So as it stands, it's 3 votes in favor of deleting, and one opinion expressed that we need to be a little more inclusive and have some dialogue, but who stated they won't oppose deletion, so essentially one vote of "present" (and please note that was not meant as a joke or to mock, just trying to accurately state the case). In the interests of... well, not really sure what this is in the interest of, but in the interests of something, I figure I'll hold off till tomorrow, see if anyone else has opinions on the matter. SpartHawg948 00:11, January 16, 2010 (UTC) :I am against it. It's very difficult to record what is being said. (I have tried.) In most cases, the player is going by memory on what has been said which renders what is written down as suspicious and woefully inaccurate. For those interested, a player can successfully record conversations which are expository in nature (the investigate branch, for example.) Most other conversations go by too fast, with the player left with the last sentence recorded faithfully and everything before it looking like Swiss cheese. And, as we limited to about 100 saves, it's not simply possible to fully record what is said without running into this barrier. If we did do this, we would have to do a line-check, verifying every word and punctuation mark. A very laborious task, indeed.Throwback 07:58, January 16, 2010 (UTC) :Ok! I gave it a few days, and the official vote tally is: 4 votes in favor of deletion, no votes opposed, 1 vote of present. So, delete it is! SpartHawg948 04:16, January 17, 2010 (UTC) What the hell! I liked that article, I just came on here to look at it, as I'm sure many others have and it wasn't there. There is no reason to delete it. The wiki doen't have a limited amount of space, so just leave it there, and if you don't want to read it, then don't! :Sorry. We do have rules and standards, it was felt that this article didn't meet those, it was nominated for deletion, we put it to a vote, and over the course of 2 days got four votes to delete and no votes to keep. This is the first complaint I've heard, so not sure about the "many others", but we did this according to the policy, and none of these "many others" voted to keep it. SpartHawg948 20:40, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :::a side note, maybe we should have a minimum amount of time for voting on deletions. In retrospect, two days isn't a lot of time and, as this shows, some people may have missed the discussion. --[[User:Tullis|Tullis] 20:51, January 18, 2010 (UTC) ] ::::One week? SpartHawg948 20:52, January 18, 2010 (UTC) I like the article being around, if not for more than just a candid look at the squad and the little nuances that the developers put in. As someone who sticks with Garrus and Wrex I like reading what some of the other combos say. I don't think that the article is NECESSARY but I think that its fun and doesn't really hurt much.--Xaero Dumort 21:48, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :Um... ok? I guess that changes the vote total to 4-1-1, still in favor of deletion by a 4-1 margin, one day after the article was deleted! :P SpartHawg948 22:17, January 18, 2010 (UTC) OK i still don't get it, why did you delete this? Was it causing anyone any inconvienience? Was it causing destress and/or phisical harm to anyone? No? Then why was it deleted? I liked it and want it back! I liked it too and think it should have been kept please bring it back. :quick note- if you consult the history for this page you will notice that all the unsigned comments in favor of keeping the article/bringing it back were left by the same anon user (who also has a penchant for deleting or editing the comments of other users), and in fact, the last two (seperated by the big gap) were left within one minute of each other. So it would appear that there is one anon user trying to make it appear that there is a groundswell of support for the article, when this does not appear to be the case. Just figured I'd point that out in the interest of openness. SpartHawg948 11:49, January 19, 2010 (UTC) I liked this article. I don't have time to reply the game with every combination of characters, so it was neat to hear what they had to say. ::It seems one person's astroturfing has turned this vote into a joke. Not to mention taking the appalling action of editing the vote count itself. (And you don't have to replay the game with every combination of characters. Just grab a new squad every time you walk around the Citadel.) ::The point is that having entire transcripts of dialogue is not what we're about. That's why we don't have quote sections on pages, to save the best for characters' pages. But this argument has been laid out above. People are free to post this stuff on their user pages, but I don't think there's enough good reasons to have this article. Especially since one person has emerged as the most militant voice, to the extent of violating wiki policy. ::Finally: there are copies of the elevator conversations out there. It took me twenty seconds with Google to turn up transcripts on the official forums. It's not like they don't exist anywhere if they don't exist here. --Tullis 17:07, January 21, 2010 (UTC) :::I enjoyed the article, but can see why it was deleted. Would have voted in favor of keeping, but even then, still outvoted. (I also Googled, but apparently only spend 15 seconds, so I didn't find that :P) Boter 17:23, January 21, 2010 (UTC) :::Could you not just bring it back? I think more people want it back and this is the Mass Effect wiki after all. If people don't like it, why don't they just not look at it? So, it may be too late, but i think we should have it back. Tandy212 22:07, January 22, 2010 (UTC) ::::No, we aren't bringing it back. So far, these "more people" haven't even exceeded the four people who voted to delete it. As for "this is the Mass Effect wiki after all" the admins are currently talking about setting in stone the policy for useless minutiae like this. Of course, if you would have read the next section "One Possible Solution" first, you would have known that, while we aren't bringing this particular page back (never as in NEVER EVER) we ARE planning on putting the content of the deleted page on a forum page and leaving it there for people to look at/refer to. That's why it's always a good idea to get all the facts before making comments. SpartHawg948 22:32, January 22, 2010 (UTC) :FYI, I did read the "One possible solution" section and I didn't agree, I thought it should stay on this page. So please don't jump at my throat before you hear my side. Also i counted the votes up, and i think you will find that it is 4-3 in favour of keeping it.Tandy212 23:58, January 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Sorry... I just don't see why people would object to it being in the forums. It's still there, just not in the article. I also note that not one of the "keep" responses addressed the valid concerns of the "delete" people, such as accuracy of quotations. And I did recount the votes, and it appears you missed some people. Let me recap- Voting in favor of deletion- Myself, Tullis, Phylarion, Throwback. This is 4. 4 as in one more than 3, meaning you missed someone. Voting to keep- Xaero Dumort, Boter, Tandy212, plus two anon users (one of whom was removed from the count after attempting to vote multiple times and editing others comments.) So 4. As in a tie. And since this tie only occurred after the article was deleted, it's kind of irrelevant at this time, no? Regardless, this article is staying deleted, at least until I hear some valid solutions to the issues raised by the deletion crowd, especially the spoilers and accuracy issues. Sorry for seeming like I was "jumping down your throat" but it seemed to me like you were overlooking a valid solution, and again, I don't see why it would be less acceptable to have this moved to the forums. It's been done before with character builds, I really don't see the issue. SpartHawg948 00:41, January 24, 2010 (UTC) Doesn't Throwback want to keep? Also, the main reason that I didn't want it moved to the forums, is I wouldn't know how to find it there. :Nope. If you read what Throwback wrote, he was in favor of deleting because people would be putting dialogue here based on memory, and going back through and checking it line-by-line would be pretty difficult, time-consuming, and honestly, pretty needless. Finding the forum is easy. Just type Forum:Index into the searchbox and it'll take you to the Forum:Index, and this stuff would most likely be placed in the watercooler section, or Forum:Watercooler. Part of the problem for people wanting to keep this article is that everyone who has voted to delete has given an explanation of their position, usually several reasons for supporting deletion, and hardly anyone voting to keep has given any valid reasons (and no, 'I like it' isn't a valid reason, at least not in the face of all the reasons given for deletion. If 'I like it' was a valid reason, the SSV Hyderabad would still have it's own page, and so would the zeioph and Gold Standard Class Builds). We need valid reasons to keep it, because we sure have plenty of valid reasons to delete. This type of stuff is Forum material, not encyclopedic content. SpartHawg948 08:33, January 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Might be too late now, but could we not bring this back? There is now a selection of unique dialogue pages for ME2 characters, most of which I missed. The elevator conversations are often funny and it can be difficult, not to mention boring, going in dozens of elevators with different squads just to hear them.--Marshmallow2166 22:20, February 19, 2010 (UTC) One possible solution I don't like the precedent it sets, but if absolutely necessary, we could consider doing what others have done for the character builds, and having these conversations on a forum page here. Though I don't see the difference between that and them already being available on the official forums, it's something we could consider. --Tullis 17:27, January 21, 2010 (UTC) :Sounds like a splendid idea! I have no problem whatsoever with things like this being put in the forums, because the forums are clearly listed as not being encyclopedic articles. SpartHawg948 21:41, January 21, 2010 (UTC) ::As long as we don't end up shoving every slightly borderline case on there. : ) I guess we can recover the material from the history and stick it there for people to expand. --Tullis 21:43, January 21, 2010 (UTC) Way to delete something I wanted to read because some arrogant "elite users" here didn't like it. Same bullshit you see on wikipedia right here. :Ummm... okay? Community consensus was clearly in favor of deletion, which is why it was deleted two months ago. It wasn't deleted because of some "arrogant 'elite users'", it was deleted because the overwhelming majority of those who commented were in favor of deletion. If you don't like this site, there's a simple solution. Don't come here. SpartHawg948 04:59, March 18, 2010 (UTC) there is no reason for this article' deletetion aside from some stupid users who din't think it was important although compleaty disagree by the way :Ok then. Let's hop in the 'ol Delorean and go back four months to a point in time when the above comment would have meant something. Stating that there is no reason for an article to be deleted doesn't do any good 4 months after it was deleted (although saying there was no reason for the deletion would actually be relevant). And, given that we have now implemented Unique Dialogue subpages for squad members, even if this article were to come back, it'd be up for deletion again because the unique dialogue subpages are the more appropriate venue for these comments. SpartHawg948 17:55, April 14, 2010 (UTC) Hi - as you have said now there is Unique Dialogue section - so why not to move this article contents to this section - elevator conversation are really funny and manually checking all the combination is a really big effort;/ I would like it if you brought it back JoeMoMo499 :Yeah there are multiple problems with that, with the first one being the fact that the article was deleted about 18 months ago. If conversations were to be added, then do them as the work won't be done by someone else most likely. And they are pages, not sections. Lancer1289 00:09, June 17, 2011 (UTC) Does anyone know of a place that HAS transcripts of the elevator conversations, since this wiki deleted them? Is there another wiki out there that has this info...? I've been searching for a while and haven't found them anywhere else. -Mai :They are covered now on the various UD pages. Lancer1289 15:31, February 7, 2012 (UTC) I am still not sure if they are covered but I have found useful link - it may be chance to revive those conversation and include them in UD section for each character http://masseffectquotes.com/event/elevator-conversations/ :And what are we supposed to do with this? Lancer1289 16:28, May 26, 2012 (UTC) i just came here to see what i was missing...but its dead now. :( which pairs o fsquad mates have unique dialogue, ect. it seemed useful